Candidates availing age relaxation for reserved categories cannot be selected for unreserved posts; they must be assigned to their designated category vacancies.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of Opp. Party No. 6 in Court today be kept in record.

3. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. S. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 6.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

“In view of the facts stated above in Para-6, the applicant prays for the following relief(s):

i. To quash the selection/appointment of respondent No.5 vide annexure-3.

ii. To direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as constable in Kandhamal district.

iii. To quash the letter dtd.17.05.2018 under Annexure-4.

iv. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.”

4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application for the post of Civil Constable in respect of Kandhamal District as an Unreserved Candidate. It is contended that in the said advertisement the vacancy against UR (Men) was shown at 11.

4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the private Opp. Party No. 6 though was not coming within the age group as prescribed in the advertisement under Para 6, but he made his application and claimed age relaxation as provided in respect of SEBC candidates. After availing such age relaxation as a candidate belonging to SEBC category, Opp. Party No. 6 was selected as against the vacancy meant for UR category candidate and thereby depriving the Petitioner from the purview of selection and appointment. It is also contended that the stipulation contained in the Notification issued by the Govt. in the SC & ST Development Department on 17.05.2018 under Annexure-4, wherein it was stipulated that a candidate belonging to reserve category even after availing the benefit of age relaxation can compete against general category candidate cannot be made applicable to the selection in question as the said circular was never reflected in the advertisement so issued under Annexure-1.

4.2. It is contended that once private Opp. Party No. 6 availed the benefit of age relaxation having belong to SEBC category, he cannot be appointed as against the vacancy meant for UR category candidates in respect of Kandhamal district. In support of her aforesaid submission, Ms. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Niravkumar DillipBhai Makwana Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors. ( (2019) 7 SCC 383 ) so followed by this Court in its order dtd.31.01.2023 in W.P.C.(OA) No. 2933 of 2013. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Niravkumar, in Para 22 to 24, 27, 30 & 34 has held as follows:-

“22. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision empowering the State to make any provision or reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the service under the State. It is purely a matter of discretion of the State Government to formulate a policy for concession, exemption, preference or relaxation either conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the backward classes of citizens. The reservation being the enabling provision, the manner and the extent to which reservation is provided has to be spelled out from the orders issued by the Government from time to time.

23. In the instant case, the State Government has framed policy for the grant of reservation in favour of SC/ST and OB